Was a second rate FOAM used in the shuttle????

Was the damage to columbia shuttle caused by second rate

insulation foam ?

Was this new foam a tree hugger new foam used to prevent

damage to the envirorment responsible for the failure?

Was the new foam not as strong as the old foam ...

the old foam was stronger and didnt break off and did NASA

management know this and did it anyway?

Did NASA management have dispensation to use the old poluting

foam , but choise to be envirmentaly correct and use a

less strong foam?

Did people die from a bad entrenched liberal NASA

management decision ?

I dont know...perhaps you do.


love
peace
hank

"hank" wrote in message
om...
Was the damage to columbia shuttle caused by second rate
insulation foam ?

Dunno. Sounds like a stretch. The foam on the bipod mount was put down in a big
glob where it stiffened and then was carved into some semblance of aerodynamic
shape with butter knives. The foam separation is what you can expect when this
sort of under-engineering is exposed to a mach one air stream.

The quality of the foam would be more likely to affect the occurence of
"popcorn", which is a different phenoemena. Small bits of foam coming off the
external tank by the hundreds that cause damage to the insulating tiles. The
quality of the foam should be addressed in the report.

Whatever it was, I suspect that nobody thought that mere foam could do the
damage it did. They used intuition rather than a full scale test. if they
had run tests, they would have very soon seen what everyone saw only a few
short weeks back....

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"hank" wrote in message
om...
| Was the damage to columbia shuttle caused by second rate
|
| insulation foam ?
|
| Was this new foam a tree hugger new foam used to prevent
|
| damage to the envirorment responsible for the failure?
|
| Was the new foam not as strong as the old foam ...
|
| the old foam was stronger and didnt break off and did NASA
|
| management know this and did it anyway?
|
| Did NASA management have dispensation to use the old poluting
|
| foam , but choise to be envirmentaly correct and use a
|
| less strong foam?
|
| Did people die from a bad entrenched liberal NASA
|
| management decision ?
|
| I dont know...perhaps you do.
|
|
| love
| peace
| hank


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/03

Was the damage to columbia shuttle caused by second rate

insulation foam ?

Was this new foam a tree hugger new foam used to prevent

damage to the envirorment responsible for the failure?

Nope. The foam that caused the damage was "BX-250, a polyurethane foam applied
with CFC-11 chloroflorocarbon" (Investigation report, page 51).



Was the new foam not as strong as the old foam ...


Why don't you investigate instead of asking rhetorical questions? In any case,
it was not the new foam that came off.


the old foam was stronger and didnt break off and did NASA

management know this and did it anyway?

Did NASA management have dispensation to use the old poluting

foam , but choise to be envirmentaly correct and use a

less strong foam?

Did people die from a bad entrenched liberal NASA

management decision ?

No. And protecting the environment is not a liberal cause.


I dont know...perhaps you do.


love
peace
hank


http://info-pollution.com/Hacker.htm
http://info-pollution.com/challenger.htm

===========================


Anti-environmental myths
http://info-pollution.com/myths.htm
Practical skepticism
http://info-pollution.com/skeptic.htm

(hank) writes:

Was the damage to columbia shuttle caused by second rate insulation
foam ? Was this new foam a tree hugger new foam used to prevent
damage to the envirorment responsible for the failure? Was the new
foam not as strong as the old foam ... the old foam was stronger and
didnt break off and did NASA management know this and did it anyway?
Did NASA management have dispensation to use the old poluting foam ,
but choise to be envirmentaly correct and use a less strong foam? Did
people die from a bad entrenched liberal NASA management decision ?

I dont know...perhaps you do.

You're right. You don't know. To answer your questions: no, no,
unclear, no, no.

We've been over this before. There was a switch in foam composition,
and I've heard it was made for environmental reasons. HOWEVER, the foam
on the Columbia's tank was the old foam. It would be just as fair to
say that the tree-huggers would have saved Columbia if they had had
their way earlier (what I'm saying is, we don't know either way, and you
should stop pushing this point).

love
peace
hank

Yeah, you too.

In article ,
says...
Whatever it was, I suspect that nobody thought that mere foam could do the
damage it did. They used intuition rather than a full scale test. if they
had run tests, they would have very soon seen what everyone saw only a few
short weeks back....

Exactly. Recall that Ron Dittemore expressed the prevailing view just
after the accident when he said that he just couldn't believe that a
"mere" foam strike could possibly have caused enough damage to result in
the loss of the vehicle.

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for | Doug Van Dorn
thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup |

In article ,
says...

snip

Did people die from a bad entrenched liberal NASA

management decision ?

No. And protecting the environment is not a liberal cause.

Don't waste your breath, Jim. These knee-jerk hyperconservatives will
*never* be swayed from their attempts to blame every ill in the world on
"liberal" politicians. Remember, they're just trying to consolidate
money and power in their own hands, and the hands of a very few of their
rich friends, and are using McCarthy-esque accusations and fear-mongering
to further their own enrichment.

Against that, little things like truth and verifiable proof are simply
swept aside as meaningless...

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for | Doug Van Dorn
thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup |

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:00:59 +0000, hank wrote:

Chris Jones wrote:

(hank) writes:

smip hank yammering..

You're right. You don't know. To answer your questions: no, no,
unclear, no, no.

We've been over this before. There was a switch in foam composition,
and I've heard it was made for environmental reasons. HOWEVER, the foam
on the Columbia's tank was the old foam. It would be just as fair to
say that the tree-huggers would have saved Columbia if they had had
their way earlier (what I'm saying is, we don't know either way, and you
should stop pushing this point).

stop pushing the point??

You are all heart....buddy.

Try telling that to the families of the dead.

Your knee-jerk spew has been shown to be based on a false
assumption... and instead of acknowledging the points raised you
wrap yourself in flags ripped from the coffins of the astronauts.

plonk

hank

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

Chris Jones wrote in message ...
(hank) writes:

Was the damage to columbia shuttle caused by second rate insulation
foam ? Was this new foam a tree hugger new foam used to prevent
damage to the envirorment responsible for the failure? Was the new
foam not as strong as the old foam ... the old foam was stronger and
didnt break off and did NASA management know this and did it anyway?
Did NASA management have dispensation to use the old poluting foam ,
but choise to be envirmentaly correct and use a less strong foam? Did
people die from a bad entrenched liberal NASA management decision ?

I dont know...perhaps you do.

You're right. You don't know. To answer your questions: no, no,
unclear, no, no.

We've been over this before. There was a switch in foam composition,
and I've heard it was made for environmental reasons. HOWEVER, the foam
on the Columbia's tank was the old foam. It would be just as fair to
say that the tree-huggers would have saved Columbia if they had had
their way earlier (what I'm saying is, we don't know either way, and you
should stop pushing this point).

love
peace
hank

Yeah, you too.
////
stop pushing the point??

You are all heart....buddy.

Try telling that to the families of the dead.

hank

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:00:59 +0000, hank wrote (some incredibly
offensive drivel):

snip

Your knee-jerk spew has been shown to be based on a false
assumption... and instead of acknowledging the points raised you
wrap yourself in flags ripped from the coffins of the astronauts.

Thanks, Chuck. Even sitting in my killfile, this asshole has succeeded
in making my blood pressure rise with his offensive, agenda-ridden
attitude. You expressed my disgust perfectly.

--

Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for | Doug Van Dorn
thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup |